Mini 168 - Item Mafia Game Over

[CoolBot]

I don't like partial roleclaims. It gives scum to much time to make a believable claim.

vote: warpdragon

[CoolBot]

warp, how exactly do your rhymes work? I wouldn't really think two random words in the middle of sentences really qualify, unless the mod specifically told me so.

[CoolBot]

unvote: WarpDragon
vote: armix

That's not really much to go on, so this is mostly random. I never cast my random day 1 vote anyway.

[CoolBot]

Krishna, except for end games, no lynchs are only advantagous to scum. Are you seriously advocating this?

[CoolBot]

Krishna, the particular situation when no lynchs are a good idea is if there are multiple scum groups and the town does not make up a majority of the town. For example, a SK, one mafia, and two townies. The only way for the town to win is to hope the scum kill each other at night.

In just about every other case, no lynchs are the wrong play, since all it does it take all pressure off scum. We don't win by cops randomly picking the right person; we win by pressuring scum into a mistake. And the best way to pressure is bandwagon and lynch.

[CoolBot]

Basically, Krishna, it comes done to if we do not lynch, we do not catch scum and we cannot win.

[CoolBot]

Mol, you were trying to invigorate the game. Even though you were one of those to consider a no lynch. Doesn't seem credible to me. I'd vote you right now, but I want to hear your response and I don't want you to be lynched until I hear it.

[CoolBot]

I think mol is scum, who hoped the town was moving to a no lynch. Then, when it started to look otherwise, he placed a vote on sycko for basically no reason. Now, he's trying to convince us that he did so to get people posting. This doesn't make sense, as the 24 hours imeediatly preceeding mol's vote had 13 posts. This is a pretty decent rate, especially when you considers it was the weekend. He was just making a random so as not to appear to lurk.

unvote: Armix
vote: meaning of life 42

[CoolBot]

I'll buy a

mirror

.

Iammer, any particular reason I should answer you questions?

[CoolBot]

Well, I prefer to wait to answer those particular questions until when and if I need to claim. There's no need to let the mafia to get any info about my role.

[CoolBot]

Strykker, that's a terrible idea. The problem with designating someone a vig is the mafia will know who it is, and will takes steps to neutralize it. Generally, it's better to let people make their own decisions.

Incindently, kleimer didn't sell his ammo unless he also PMed Crola, according to the rules. There's a chance he wanted us to think he was selling it while keeping the ammo.

[CoolBot]

Why does everyone assume the mafia need a gun to kill? My role doesn't need any item to work. It'd be a pretty big disadvantage for the mafia if it was otherwise for them.

I think going after gun/ammo buyers is a wild goose chase, and the mafia are probably leading it.

vote: LordKrishna

[CoolBot]

I don't find the fact that someone bought a gun or ammo to be suspicous enough to lynch over. In fact, I find it pretty bad logic; why should the town refrain from using every tool at its disposal? I think some of the people pushing this lynch are scum.

[CoolBot]

Let's examine Lord Krishna's behavior. He started the sycko bandwagon. He got off when it picked up steam. And he refuses to cast the lynching vote, despite arguing to lynch sycko (buy arguing we should get get rid of anyone buying a gun). This is scum trying to direct the town. He should be the one we lynch.

[CoolBot]

Krishna, I never said I though sycko was scum, so why would I lynch him? You found him suspicous, voted him, but won't lynch him. That's contradictory, and often a sign of scum. Not to mention, you were the first to bring up no lynch on day 1.

[CoolBot]

I'll

buy

a [/b]confusion ray[/b].

Armix, why are you random voting. It's day 3; surely you can find someone acting scummy. I sure can: LordKRishna, for pretty much the reasons I mentioned yesterday. He argued buying a gun was scummy, which was the prime reason for the sycko wagon. He unvoted him though, despite continuing to argue against sycko. He pretty clearly made it known he didn't want to cast the lynching vote on sycko. Oh, he also pushed a no lynch on Day 1.

Vote: LordKrishna

[CoolBot]

Krishna, I find it funny you're voting kleimer on the same theory that proved false Day 2. The fact is there is a very good reason to buy dangerous items: to keep the scum from getting them.

I stand by my reading of Krisna's actions Day 2. He hopped off the sycko wagon while still agreeing with the arguement behind it.

[CoolBot]

Where did I ever attack kleimar? The most I did was point out a potential scam, but I never followed up on it. If anything, I'm tacitly defending him by attacking Krishna.

[CoolBot]

Your notes are wrong. You may filter my posts out and you would find I only mentioned kleimer once.

Incindently, kleimer didn't sell his ammo unless he also PMed Crola, according to the rules. There's a chance he wanted us to think he was selling it while keeping the ammo.

That's hardly an attack. All I was doing was noting we had to take his word that the ammo was sold. Sapphire, Stryyker, Locus, and Krishna were the prime movers of the crappy ammo buying equals scum theory.

[CoolBot]

Armix, you notes are wrong in regard to me attacking kleimer. Reread the thread, and you'll find that to be true.
--------
Krishna was the first to vote sycko:

All right, so this looks weird to me, again. Immediately after many of us note that kleimar's buying of ammo looks scummy (and a few of us put votes on him), knowing full well how the town reacted to kleimar's ammo purchase, sycko999 goes and purchases a gun!

Sycko, you've got a vote coming to you, which you should surely have known would happen, given the immediately preceding actions. What's your game?

UNVOTE: kleimar. VOTE: sycko999.

In his next post he continues to push sycko, and then I vote him because he's one of those pushing the theory that buying gun/ammo equals scum. He immediatly responed to me, expressing that there wasn't any reason for town to buy a gun, which is false. He also says that there's less reason to vote sycko than kleimer. Yet he's still voting for sycko.

CoolBot, assuming the Mafia gets one kill a night (innate role-ability), WHY would they not buy the gun to get a second? (then another one for a third)

My initial reaction to all this was that trying to make us think that the scum have no reasons to buy guns is pretty scummy behavior, though I do see the point that buying guns could be a vigilante action. I still don't understand why people say that a vigiliante would be a good thing. It still seems to me that it would be an extra person killing people off, who has no more information than does the rest of the town!

Kleimar's initial move of buying ammo might have been more scummy than sycko's subsequent gun-purchase, as it suggests he already has a gun. His reason of 'Oh, but I just wanted to see what it did' doesn't really jive with me, for the simple reason that we can all guess exactly what it does. I suppose it's nice for Town to know that there are three bullets, or whatever, but I think the info gained from buying ammo is less than from sycko's candle purchase, for example.

All this said, I think there may potentially be less reason to suspect sycko999 of being scum than kleimar. (REASON: Buying a gun implies you don't have one [caveat that perhaps the scum start with 1 gun and want to get three], but buying ammo implies you've emptied your clip!). Kleimar, I'm interested in hearing a more in-depth defense from you, as sycko's done a little more, imho, of clearing his name. I'll levae the vote where it is for now, pending Kleimar's defense and the weighing in of others.

Finally, Krishna unvotes sycko to give him some breathing room. Nothing scummy with that, but note that he didn't say anything about not finding sycko suspicous anymore. Though it should be noted sycko had already claimed.

UNVOTE: Sycko!!

I'll unvote to allow him some breathing room -- I don't want scum lynching him before he gets to defend himself!

After sycko made a post to point out he did claim, so there wasn't any reason to give him any breathing room. So what does Krishna do? Attack him, but not vote him.

I am pretty comfortable lynching you, pending a further lack of an adequate defense on your part... BUT I will continue to withhold my vote from you to prevent you from getting lynched without a REAL defense.

Anyone else have thoughts on sycko's reasons?

After this, Krishna starts to point out sycko's brash style, in an apparent attempt to get someone to vote him for this. Of course, Krishna points out he certainly wasn't going to make the lynch:

In fact, I will not be placing the lynch vote on you, sycko, EVEN THOUGH you are lashing out at random, and voting for people based on useless reasons. Your tone is irksome, and does not at all befit that of a man of the cloth. I suggest you do some penance, a confessional, whatever is necessary to calm you down enough to start rationally approaching the problem. (What *is* the problem, ask some people out there -- THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE KILLING OUR TOWN!!) Let's fix that, then worry about who is playing stupidly, or who is not as smart, or who's momma is the biggest slut, or whatever...

I accuse Krishna again, and now he says he wasn't a supporter of the lynch the gun buyers crowd. This is absurd. He was the first to vote sycko, and when he unvoted, he made no indication it was because sycko sold the gun.

I'm not voting for sycko, because I don't argue that we should lynch anyone trying to buy a gun -- I advocate NOT ALLOWING anyone to buy a gun (we have already done this in sycko's case), unless we have some way of proving them innocent. I don't see a way of doing this, do you? My initial vote on sycko was a pressure vote, a way of forcing him to answer my question ("What's your game?"). I now simply think it was a poor choice on his part to buy a gun, NOT scummy behavior (this is why I don't want to vote for his lynching).

Krishna was the first on sycko's wagon. He got off the wagon for the understandable reason of preventing a quick lynch. He continues to argue against sycko. And well after unvoting sycko, he changes the reason why he unvoted sycko. Combined with advocating a day 1 lynch, he is looking extremely scummy. Lynch him.

[CoolBot]

By my count, there's three of five votes on me. So it's time for me to claim.

I'm a cop. Night 1, I investigated LordKrishna and found him anti-town. Night 2, I used a item.

[CoolBot]

The item I used was a protective one, since Iammers decided to let everyone know I had a role. I thought it was in the town's best interest since a doc was unlikely to protect me Day 2. There are probably investigative items anyway, so I don't see the loss of one investigation that big of a deal.

[CoolBot]

Can anyone confirm they have a night action in their ability?

So you think no one has any night actions? Why do you think that? I already said I had a role independent of my items:

Why does everyone assume the mafia need a gun to kill? My role doesn't need any item to work.

Krishna, I have not been going after the entire game; only since day 2. I certainly should've gone after Day 1 due to your no lynch suggestion. In fact, usually I do just that, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

[CoolBot]

I found scum. If you believe I'm a cop, why aren't you voting LordKrishna? There's no reason to let this wait until Day 4.

[CoolBot]

Kleimer's correct; I did find someone pro-town. I don't think I should mention who unless that person is in danger of being lynched.

[CoolBot]

Huh? I already said I was a cop.

[CoolBot]

Personally, warpdragon, I don't find your reasoning that the Verdes are masons compelling. A very essential part of Mafia is that the roles are assigned randomly, and it would be a pretty big mistake on Crola's part to do so. Note this does not preclude Styker being mason as he claimed; he just had the same chance as the rest of us. Also note the same reasoning could make them scum together.

Also, i don't see why Locus, Armix, and Assasin should have to say they aren't mason. If they are, you can be sure they'd say something, so we can safely assume they're not if they don't say anything. That said, I find Locus to be the most suspicous, since he pushed the buying ammo theory well after it proved questionable with sycko's death and his subtle attempt to undermine my investigations.

vote: Locus Cosecant

Oh, kelimer, are you able to use items and recieve a result in the same night?

[CoolBot]

I agree; we should lynch Locus; he's surely scum. Over the night, we can check on Strykker and Assasin.

[CoolBot]

Why was kleimer lynched? He was cleared and knew Assasin was scum. Armix was cleared. This game should've been in the bag for the town.